Please excuse any of the following which do not correspond to your edited post:
What are you talking about? You don’t believe in weather?
Ah, I bet you are complaining that weather does not evolve. That might be because you are using a myopic understanding of the word.
Does weather follow the rules determined for it by its Creator? Yeah, I think so, unless he sovereignly and providentially intervenes.
Does organic nature follow the rules determined for it by its Creator? Yeah, I think so, unless he sovereignly and providentially intervenes.
The study of the rules God set for the evolution of the weather is part of what we call ‘meteorology’.
It also includes other things like physics and chemistry.
The study of the rules God set for the evolution of organic nature is part of what we call ‘biology’.
It also includes things like physics and chemistry and genetics and molecular biology and biochemistry and zoology and botany and cell biology and entomology and developmental biology and embryology and histology and morphology and mycology and virology and bacteriology and paleontology and neuroscience and ornithology and biophysics and physiology and…
And they all acknowledge evolution. It’s a big conspiracy.
Biological evolution follows rules. Just like the weather.
That is utter nonesense. You seem to be under the illusion that Darwinian theory is ancient…that is far from the case. Considering that Christianity came out of Judaism…and given that the Jews believed in the biblical genealogies, your claim is absurd at best! You are ignorant of the cultural history of the very people whom God gave the gospel to prior to giving it to the Gentiles! You know full well that the Jewish cultural dates back thousands of years B.C…it is impossible to make the ridiculous claims that “early church writers thought the earth was ancient”. That is predated by Jewish culture from where the early church came in the first place. using your anaglogy, one should make the claim that due to earth church writers, Ariansim is truth. The fact is, Arianism although modern at its time, was considered heretical by the early church leadership because they new it was wrong from existing historical writings and interpretations given by the apostles… and they went to great lengths to rid themselves of its scourge.
On the point of Old Age Earth and the early church, you are simply blind to the history of very ancient Jewish religious culture St Roymond and its time you opened your eyes and looked a little more carefully for your sources of enlightenment. One cannot ignore history despite the science.
The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is considered to have been written by the Tanna Yose ben Halafta, and cover history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. This chronology is widely accepted among most of Orthodox Judaism today.
The problem with mixing Old Age Earth and Jewish culture is this…the Jewish Young Earth timeline was cultural history, not interpretation of scripture! (a key difference between this and Arian vs Trinity doctrines btw)
Now to be fair to the discussion, i am including a modern jewish approach to the issues between Evolutionary science and the traditional religous timeline. Whilst i do not agree with certain conclusions in the article, ie that it may be possible to read the days in Genesis chapter 1 as long days…even if we made a day 1,000 years its still no where near long enough for evolutionary timelines so that point does not resolve the issue in any way and my udnerstanding is that old age scholars often reject this argument for exactly the reason that it still doesnt equate to billions of years, and religious scholars take issue because of the theological problem is causes. Despite these issues, I do think the article does a good job on explaining the incompatibility between evolution and religion in general.
Yes, of course … evolutionary scientists do it all the time. They invent stories about how things might have evolved and call those stories hypotheses.
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”
William B. Provine
Can you think of a spiritual entity who would want to promote atheism?
Even someone armed with no more than highschool-level biology can see the gaping holes in ToE.
Although a good Christian teacher who understands it wouldn’t have left gaping holes for her students. It really is analogous to cosmology and meteorology, all of which are under God’s providential sovereignty.
According to the Jewish Calendar, this year (2023) is 5783 … according to the belief that Adam and Eve were created 5783 years ago, based on biblical genealogies.
This is not your best work, is it? Got your wires crossed here, little duck.
One can accept that life on earth has evolved (as I do) without accepting ToE (as I don’t).
ToE is the neo-Darwinian explanation for how life on earth evolved.
Ignoring that the terminology is generally not of a “story”, that is a generally true statement. But the important part is what comes next: we go out and test those hypotheses. Even if we haven’t fully formulated particular ones, an observation like the one here:
is a test of evolution by testing the general prediction that “forms of intermediate age should be intermediate in form.” And I could provide a few other examples, but the idea is the same.
All right, where are they? As apparently I’m either willfully blind, delusional, or brainwashed, given that all the “holes” I have so far encountered are either somewhere in a gray area between laughably wrong, depressingly wrong, and offensively wrong; are irrelevant; or involve committing logical fallacies.
Neo-Darwinian is a subset of the Theory of Evolution.
I will preface this by saying that I am not anti-Darwin, nor bothered by the paradigm of biology - what I would like is a scientific answer to a simple question, and that is, what is the theory of evolution? Any scientifically tested theory has, I believe as a scientist, a clear statement that can be examined by various methods, including mathematically formulated expression(s), that may be scrutinized etc. Yet ToE boils down to semantic statements (or so I gather from the literature on the subject).
